Matthew 2:1-2

Matthew opens with a scene that looks simple on the surface, and gets stranger the closer you read it.

“When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of King Herod, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, ‘Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage.’”

Start with the magi themselves. They were most likely Babylonian astrologers, or perhaps Babylonian Jews, since astrology held a real fascination for Jewish communities of the period. Either they were priests, or they were kings, and if they were kings, then what we have here is one king paying homage to an infant rival. Babylonian Jewry of this period produced its own notable figures, Hillel among them, and Menahem as well, so the idea of learned Babylonian visitors carrying real standing is not a stretch.

What should catch your attention is the juxtaposition itself. Jesus gets called the newborn king of the Jews in the same breath that Herod is named king of the Jews, and setting those two titles side by side, in the same short passage, raises a question the text never quite answers on its own.

The phrase “star at its rising” is doing real astrological work here, not just poetic decoration. In astrology each zodiac sign carries its own ruling planet, and the planet governing whichever sign is climbing the eastern horizon at a given moment is the one exerting influence at that instant, what astrologers call the ascendant, or the rising sign. Matthew’s timing detail places the newborn king’s arrival at exactly the moment a particular sign was rising in the east.

Three terms come together in this verse: king, rising star, and homage. The rising star stands in for the king himself, and the planet doing that symbolic work is Jupiter.

Matthew 2:3

“When King Herod heard this, he was greatly troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.”

This detail deserves real scrutiny. Herod had just executed his own sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, on the charge that they were plotting to dethrone him, and doing so at almost precisely this moment in his reign. Meeting a king under those conditions and asking him, to his face, where a rival newborn king could be found would take considerable nerve, verging on recklessness, unless the child in question actually belonged to Herod’s own house. Read that way, the magi’s approach starts to sound less like an insult and more like something Herod himself would have wanted to hear, three wise men effectively telling him that his true heir had arrived, with a star to prove it.

The claim that “all Jerusalem” was troubled alongside Herod raises its own problem. Herod was never popular among the Jewish population he ruled. His Idumean ancestry marked him as an outsider to Jews who took their national and religious identity seriously, and he was never accepted by them as a legitimate king in any full sense. For the whole city to share Herod’s alarm at news of a newborn king, when every observant Jew of the period was actively hoping for exactly that news, does not square easily with what we know about popular sentiment toward Herod. The simplest explanation may be that “all Jerusalem” in this verse functions less as a description of the general population and more as a stand-in for Herod’s own circle, the Herodians themselves.

Matthew 2:4-6

“Assembling all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They said to him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it has been written through the prophet: And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers, since from you shall come a ruler, who is to shepherd my people Israel.’”

Three things stand out here. First, Herod apparently does not already know where the Messiah is to be born, and notice that Matthew has shifted his vocabulary at exactly this point, from king to Messiah. Second, the closeness implied between “all the chief priests and the scribes of the people” and Herod deserves its own pause, since the historical relationship between Herod and the Temple establishment was defined by real tension rather than cooperation. The priests and scribes did not regard Herod as their king. Only God held that title in their eyes. Third, there is the prophecy itself, the specific text Matthew reaches for to answer the question.

The Jerusalem of the Second Temple period lived in a state of active expectation for the coming Messiah, and Herod, whatever his mixed ancestry, would have been an unlikely candidate to remain ignorant of that expectation. Rome had formally declared him king of the Jews, and a cult had grown up around him in which his own followers, the Herodians, believed he himself was the Christ. Writing against the Herodians, Epiphanius records: “They believed, however, that Herod was Christ, thought that the Christ awaited in all scriptures of the Law and prophets was Herod himself.”[1]

There is a Roman parallel that belongs alongside this. Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, dedicated to Asinius Pollio, a personal friend of Herod’s, announces the arrival of a new world order and the birth of a divine child called the Son of God. Pollio’s own household, incidentally, is where Herod’s sons Alexander and Aristobulus stayed while they studied in Rome. Between the Roman world and the Jewish one, Herod had every reason to already know that a long-awaited figure was expected. His inquiry to the priests and scribes, on this reading, looks less like real ignorance and more like theater.

The prophecy Matthew quotes comes from Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem-Ephrathah, least among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient times. Therefore the Lord will give them up, until the time when she who is to give birth has borne, then the rest of his kindred shall return to the children of Israel.”

Matthew drops “Ephrathah” from the verse he quotes, which lets the passage read as a straightforward reference to the town of Bethlehem. But the actual referent in Micah is the clan of Ephrathah, a specific family group from Bethlehem, exactly as Ruth 1:2 identifies them: “they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem of Judah.” The common Jewish expectation of the period held that the Messiah, like David before him, would be born in the town of Bethlehem, which raises a real question about why Matthew would reach for a verse that, read on its own terms, refers to a family lineage rather than a birthplace.

There is a further problem with the star itself. If it had shone brightly, guiding the magi across a great distance, it seems reasonable that the chief priests and scribes, living in Jerusalem itself, would have noticed it too, without needing three foreign visitors to point it out. Instead the star appears to disappear after its initial rising and only reappears once the magi have already made their inquiry to Herod, moving, stopping, and hovering some eight to ten miles from Jerusalem, precisely where Bethlehem stood. Whatever this was, the ordinary population of Jerusalem would have had every opportunity to see it too, and Matthew even tells us the reaction it produced: “They were overjoyed at seeing the star” (Matthew 2:10). The whole city, in other words, was watching for exactly this.

Matthew 2:7

“Then Herod called the magi secretly and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearance.”

A little astrology helps make sense of what is actually being asked here. Calculating a basic zodiac sign only requires a month and a date of birth. Calculating the ascendant, the sign actually rising over the horizon at a given moment, requires the exact time of birth and the exact location as well. My own sun sign is Virgo, for instance, but my ascendant is Scorpio, ruled by Pluto, and I only know that because I know precisely when and where I was born. Claudius Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos lays out exactly this method. Knowing the rising sign at a specific time already tells you a great deal about geographic location.

Which makes the exchange in this verse deserve a real pause. Herod already knows the timing and the ruling planet involved, since the magi have told him as much, and you cannot calculate an ascendant sign without already knowing where the birth took place. So the magi’s earlier question to Herod, asking where the newborn king could be found, starts to look less like an honest question and more like something else entirely.

Matthew 2:8-11

“He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word, that I too may go and do him homage.’ After their audience with the king they set out. And behold, the star that they had seen at its rising preceded them, until it came and stopped over the place where the child was. They were overjoyed at seeing the star, and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother.”

Bethlehem lies only a few miles south of Jerusalem, so the geography here is not the problem. The problem is the star’s behavior. It reappears, precedes the travelers, and then stops directly over a specific building, and none of that belongs to any real astronomical phenomenon. Stars do not move and halt over houses. Planets, on the other hand, do wander across the sky in ways that can look like exactly this kind of motion, and Michael Molnar has worked out one candidate with real precision: “We know that Jupiter had its heliacal rising (‘in the east’) in Aries on 17 April 6 BCE, moved weeks later into the next zodiacal sign, Taurus, and returned to Aries, the astrological sign of Judea, where it stationed (‘stood over’) on 19 December 6 BCE, a secondary reinforcing portent. Thus, the account has this credible timeline element in addition to the astounding horoscope that could indeed have drawn the attention of some astrologers to Judea.”[2]

There is still a timeline that does not add up cleanly, though. Herod orders the killing of children two years old and under, which tells us the magi’s journey, from first sighting the star to finally reaching the child, took something like two years. That raises an obvious question: what place lies two years of travel away, and why would a delegation take that long to arrive from anywhere in the Persian or Babylonian world Matthew seems to have in mind? A star appearing to stop directly over a house would have drawn enormous attention from anyone nearby, the kind of collective sighting later ages associated with reported celestial spectacles like the one recorded over Nuremberg in 1561.

What Matthew Is Really Saying

Put these threads together and a different account of Matthew’s story starts to take shape.

The three magi, on this reading, were supporters of Herod, quite possibly friends of Menahem, and their visit to Jerusalem was not a naive act of star-following but a mission with a specific goal. They came to tell Herod about a star that, in the astrological language of the period, predicted the arrival of a coming king, and Herod already understood exactly what they meant, since he himself held the title of legitimate king of the Jews and had every reason to know what such a sign would announce. Any newborn recognized in this way by magi, men themselves regarded as kings in their own right, could not have come from just any womb. He would have come from a woman the king himself had chosen to bear his heir, a woman set apart from the rest. The newborn was Herod’s own son. Read this way, the magi’s willingness to walk up to Herod and ask him, to his face, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star at its rising and have come to do him homage,” stops looking like recklessness and starts looking like men delivering expected news to an expectant father.

There was, on this account, no actual consultation between Herod and “all the chief priests and the scribes of the people.” That scene belongs to Matthew’s own invention, and the Micah citation that supposedly settles the question of the Messiah’s birthplace was a deliberate misdirection, planted by Matthew to demonstrate that the Jewish religious establishment had gotten the Messiah wrong from the start. This fits a pattern that shows up again later in the Gospel, when the grown Jesus challenges the very same establishment over its understanding of who the Messiah actually is: “If David calls him ‘lord,’ how can he be his son? No one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him any more questions” (Matthew 22:45–46).

There was no order to massacre children two years old and under. That detail is fiction, a cryptic way of preserving the true age of the child at the time the magi found him rather than a historical decree. Which means there was no flight to Egypt by the holy family fleeing that massacre either. The flight to Egypt described in the text belonged to the magi themselves, since Egypt was where Herod had directed them to visit the child, and this is also why they never returned to report back to Herod, and why no dream, no warning angel, needed to intervene. Herod’s own instruction was the reason the child ended up in Egypt in the first place, which gives “Out of Egypt I called my son” a very different weight than the ordinary reading assumes.

Later in the Gospel of John, Pilate asks Jesus directly whether he is a king, and Jesus answers without denying it: “Are you the King of the Jews? Jesus answered, Do you say this on your own or have others told you about me? … So Pilate said to him, ‘Then you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world’” (John 18:33–37).

A few loose threads stay open rather than settled. Was Herod himself something like a builder, a tekton, in the sense the Gospels apply to Joseph? I do not think the sources answer that cleanly. Did whatever set Jesus apart later in his ministry come from thirty years spent being raised by the magi in the east, which would also explain why so little of his childhood survives in any record? That is speculation, and I want to name it as speculation rather than dress it up as more than it is. What I would say more firmly is that the massacre of the infants reads like an invented explanation for why the first family was in Egypt to begin with, when the more economical explanation is simply that Jesus was born there, and Matthew needed a story to account for it.

Loose Threads

A number of details from outside Matthew’s own text deserve mention here too, since they bear on the same question from different angles.

The Dead Sea Scrolls material offers one intriguing point of contact. Joseph Fitzmyer notes that the Damascus Document speaks of “the star” as “the Interpreter of the Law who will come to Damascus,” a figure usually understood as an eschatological priest.[3] Herod, notably, appointed a Babylonian priest named Ananel to the high priesthood, which raises a question that deserves asking, even if it cannot be answered with confidence: whether a figure like Ananel might stand behind the guide who showed the magi where to go.

The title “Son of God, son of the Most High” deserves notice for what it is not, if I can put it that way. No observant Jew of this period, strict monotheists that they were, would have accepted the idea of God having a literal son, any more than a Muslim today would accept the idea of Allah having one. The title’s real origin looks pagan or Hellenistic rather than Jewish, and it may owe something to Qumran or Essene thought, where similar language turns up in the Damascus Covenant.

There is a more direct source right in front of us too, though, and it comes from Rome rather than from any Jewish or Essene background. Divi filius, son of the deified one, was standard imperial title language by this period, stamped onto coins that circulated across the empire once Julius Caesar had been formally deified and Augustus began minting currency that described himself as son of the divine Julius. “Son of God” in the political vocabulary of the first century was not exotic theological language reserved for a cosmic savior. It was the ordinary way an emperor advertised his own legitimacy, printed on the money people carried in their pockets.

That context matters a great deal for how the phrase should be read in Matthew’s own century and the point deserves emphasis rather than letting it pass as a minor aside. When a first-century writer reaches for “Son of God,” he is not reaching for anything like the fourth-century Trinitarian theology that later councils would spend centuries arguing over, and he is not describing a transcendent savior figure descending from outside creation to redeem it, because that idea has no real home in Jewish thought of the period at all. Judaism never developed a category for a heavenly redeemer who pre-exists the world and enters it from beyond, the way later Christian theology eventually would. What Jewish and Roman audiences alike would have heard in “Son of God” was closer to a political and dynastic claim, the language of legitimate kingship and divine favor, the same currency, quite literally, that Rome itself had been minting for decades. Reading the later theology back into Matthew’s use of the phrase gets the direction of influence backward, since the theology grew up around the title over the centuries that followed rather than the title being coined to express a theology that did not yet exist.

George Reber raised a blunt objection to the whole premise of a literal guiding star, and it still holds up: “How could a star a million of miles off lead any one on this earth, and how could it at that distance be in a position to indicate a spot on the earth where the child was?” It is a fair question, and the text never really answers it.

Consider, too, what the magi’s question actually implies. If the magi needed to ask Herod where the newborn king could be found, the simplest explanation is that Herod himself was the child’s father, the man from whom the heir would come, since walking up to a reigning king and asking after a rival heir would otherwise have been a foolish and dangerous errand, especially so soon after Herod had executed two of his own sons for exactly this kind of threat. And if Herod, in turn, needed to ask the chief priests and scribes where the Messiah was to be born, that suggests the child was not born in Jerusalem or in Bethlehem of Judea at all, and that his birth was either kept as a real secret or that the chief priests and scribes were themselves complicit in keeping it quiet. “All Jerusalem,” troubled alongside Herod, most plausibly names Herod’s own circle of friends and supporters rather than the city’s ordinary population.

There is also an inconsistency that deserves direct attention. The chief priests and scribes reportedly know exactly where the Messiah is to be born, yet Herod separately and secretly asks the magi for the timing of the star’s appearance, as though the priests and scribes had nothing useful to add on that front. Were they simply ignorant of the astrological calculations the magi carried out? And why would the star reappear only after the magi’s audience with Herod, guiding them onward, rather than simply remaining visible the whole time, in which case the magi’s own departure would have told anyone watching exactly where they were headed? It would have been the more obvious move, surely, for Herod to send his own men quietly after the magi rather than trust three foreign visitors to report back on their own.

Which raises the deeper question underneath all of this: was the star a literal heavenly body at all, or a way of describing a human guide, a messenger or representative sent by Herod to lead the magi to the child’s actual location? And here is a detail I can only offer as an honest open question rather than a settled claim: the tradition names Salome as the midwife present at the birth, and Salome happens to be the same name carried by Herod’s own sister. Whether that is coincidence or something more, I honestly do not know, and I would rather say so than force a connection the evidence cannot bear.

What I would suggest, tying all of this together, is that the massacre of the infants functions as an invented explanation, a story Matthew needed in order to account for why the family was in Egypt in the first place. The more direct explanation, and the one this reading points toward, is that Jesus was born in Egypt itself, which gives an entirely different sense to “Out of Egypt I called my son” than the traditional flight narrative allows. Whether this also connects to the Egyptian prophet Josephus describes gathering followers on the Mount of Olives is a further question, one I would rather leave open here than resolve by force.

𓂋𓍯𓈖𓈖𓇋𓃭

---

[1] Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, trans. Frank Williams, 2nd ed., Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 79 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 20.1.1.

[2] Molnar, Michael R. “The Historical Basis for the Star of Bethlehem.” Bible and Interpretation, 2012.

[3] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 54–56; Damascus Document (CD) 7:18–20, where Numbers 24:17 is interpreted: “The star is the Interpreter of the Law who shall come to Damascus.”